EIE-Ni for certain
EIE-Ni for certain
I always had him as ILI. Creative subtype.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Originally Posted by Tallmo
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Does this mean that Slavoj is surprised because my typing of him is so bad. Or does it mean that he looks like an ILI (he kindof does in this picture)
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
You decide.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
some kind of intuitive that needs a napkin
Slavoj is definitely a Ti valuer, his philosophy and psychoanalytic approach to world events make me think that. I think Alpha is a good possibility but Beta quadra makes more sense because of his concentration on power and politics.
I think he's an EIE with a possibility of ILE.
The only thing that makes ILE hard to believe is his tendency to say things purely for the reaction. Many people criticize him for have a lack of substance to his arguments and his conclusions. Also, they criticize his work for not being properly cited and he feels comfortable analyzing movies he hasn't actually seen or finished.
This could be an ILE, but his reluctance to seek out legitimate data, or substantiate his claims makes me think his thinking is lower. His logic is very odd, many people have a hard time debating him because he is highly unorthodox in thinking. He never asserts he just proposes, an ILE I think would have more faith in his theories.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
maybe LIE-Ni
Ne base. He really reminds me of two IEEs I knew. They were both older gentlemen, too. ILE is very possible. I can't see him as anything other than Ne base, though. It's like he is running through a landscape of ideas and drawing instantaneous connections between ideas of remote similarities.
Actually, I am leaning on IEE at least based on his tone, the disorganization of his thoughts, and his tendency towards "disgusting," "horrible," "evil." He also seems more interested in how ideas relate to people or are embodied in people rather than the ideas in of themselves and just has a personal warmth to the way he speaks like he is making a connection to the listener without even trying. In my experience, ILEs tend to be more removed from the listener in that way and being more focused on the ideas themselves without needing excessive examples to explain the ideas. Zizek uses many categories, but that is normal for a philosopher who becomes very acquainted with various philosophies. However, he colorfully illustrates his lectures with examples of people, their inner experiences, and his own inner experiences and does this in a very warm way in spite of the intellectual subject matter.
Last edited by aixelsyd; 08-10-2021 at 09:17 AM.
IEE. No doubt about it.
I think he has a tic maybe? or he's allergic to capitalism
I assume it's a tic. Maybe from nervous energy that is pent up or maybe he's on the spectrum. I always have had tics of my own due to not being comfortable sitting still without fidgeting. I am probably on the spectrum as well.
EII!
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
[ Slavoj Žižek - ILE ]
This time I'm not going to introduce the person, as he already has a thread. But, for those who don't know him, this video is going to do all the work for me:
LEADING:
As the title of the video might suggest, Slavoj Zizek is a very relevant character in the world of modern philosophy. He may not be the greatest philosopher of our times, the most revolutionary or the most influential, but is at least a person who makes philosophy more accessible to people (or at least gather interest), either for his characteristic way of communicating ideas, his unconventional ways of seeing events of the current events or trends, his particular corporal expression, his philosophical analysis of movies, his status of a thought-provoking leftist or simply his sense of humor, which is the reason why I think he has Ne in his leading function:
The individual is skilled at generating intellectual interest and curiosity in others and using others' curiosity to get them to do things.
Particularly, his movie comments have been a great source for him to express about ideas he considers relevant to take a peek on. For example, the revolutionary thinking falling apart after a revolution in V for Vendetta (could be simply an observation of what the movie already implies) (also, an argument for discarding him as Beta), the state of art in late capitalism in which value is measured not for his meaning and its relation with people but for his scarcity in Children of Men (which is also an argument for putting him in the Alpha quadra as he values the sharing of ideas) or the need of lying to maintain social order in The Dark Knight.
He easily sees parallels between different situations, areas of knowledge or skill, and people, and likes to establish contacts across different fields of knowledge and social groups, which allows him to be part of many things at once. He enjoys considering differing viewpoints and perspectives and seeing if they can be reconciled.
In that sense, I think Zizek is like me, typings allow me to have a starting point to expand on multiple topics, as he does with movies to talk about philosophy. Though, he's at a whole other level though, I’m not original at all. Who would have linked the topics of love with quantum physics, or toilets and the way certain cultures are shaped? I imagine these are the things that pop up in the head of a Ne-leading once a day, at least.
Also, and I may not be the only one who has pointed this out, Zizek, when he's talking, for an interview, a debate or a conference, doesn't seem to finish what he starts and even he is aware of this. Watch his debate with Jordan Peterson, often you'll see him deviating from what he first started talking to go to talk about things that need their proper explanation and time, just to reinforce his main point and come back later to it when we are already lost in a mess of logical arguments that don't have a proper direction but somehow make sense, if we have paid attention. Look at the fifth comment of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScZCL0KYj3M It is a well-known thing about him.
The concept of "finishing" seems foreign to him. Instead of taking care to finish things and tie up all loose ends, he tends to drop things when he can't handle them any longer or realize that he has neglected them for too long
Could this be applied to his way of talking?
CREATIVE:
The individual easily generates logical systems and formulations to explain a set of phenomena that he has experienced or studied.
This video is a good example of this information element at work: We can see Zizek using the Lacanian (I think) psychoanalysis theory, to explain, through a the story of a poll in which people the majority of participants chose Cindy Crawford over Claudia Schiffer, the reasoning behind people’s decision, to indicate the existence of certain principles that rules people behavior (this time: we feel attracted to the image of perfections that imperfections create by contrast) and reinforce the validity of the theory itself.
I think that there is also present in his speech this classificatory nature of
However, these logical systems or explanations are not viewed as permanent or all-encompassing, but can be improved upon or even discarded as new experience and information is added.
In a more recent video he talks about this topic of love again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBKRZCgtz6k. This time, making a distinction with the concepts of Eros and Agape, to give us a more clear understanding of what he means when he talks about love, as in the need to clarify or improve his old discourses related to this topic. As you can observe, in the minute 1:05, he says “and I’m talking NOW about erotic love” to put an emphasis that there is a difference between his old discourse and his actual discourse, that changes have been made in his way of thinking. I don’t know if all this is contained in his books and he’s just doing the work of summarizing it.
Though, this discriminatory style of thinking of-demonstrative, maybe?).
Maybe, this could be an exaggeration, but, if you were to ask a
Talking about other aspects of
By the way, I think this could be classified as
ROLE:
This is what he says in the video called “The Delusion of Green Capitalism”.
“There is, I claim, something deceptively reassuring in our readiness to assume full guilt and responsibility for the threat of our environment. We like to be guilty because if we are guilty we pull the strings and so in principle, we can also save ourselves by simply changing our lives. What is really difficult for us to accept is that we are reduced to a pure passive role of an impotent observer who can only sit back and watch what his fate will be. To avoid such a situation, we are prone to engage in frantic obsessive activities: recycling paper, buying organic food or whatever, just that we can be sure that we are doing something, making our contribution, like a soccer of baseball fan who supports his team, shouting and jumping up from his seat, in our superstitious believe that this will somehow influence the outcome.”
I think this is related with the phrase “I would prefer not to” that Zizek adopted as a motto, which encapsulates the perspective that he has about freedom, and incidentally helps us understand the way his role function works.
He says in the video called “What is freedom today?” that “the most dangerous form of non-freedom is the non-freedom which is not perceived as such”. I’ll try to explain how this relates to his dislike of green capitalism, with the help of the video:
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P18UK5IMRDI[/VIDEO]
The fact that we, as consumers, are presented with the choice to buy an environmentally friendly product, to help decrease the contamination, shows us that we have limited choices to save the environment by believing that our actions have a global impact and the root of the problems (not only related with the environment) lie in our habits (which is an idea that clashes with Zizek as it is evidenced in the debate with Jordan Peterson), that we have the power to influence the outcome of things as individuals (a thing that appeal Se-valuers). So, by taking part in these activities we maintain the status quo, perpetuating the situation that keeps producing pollution.
To complement the previous point, look at this article of The Guardian newspaper:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change
Or a more recent article:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
Some random: “Just recycle, it is better to do something than doing nothing at all”.
Zizek: “I would prefer not to”.
He is almost unable to make himself (or anyone else, for that matter) do things that they do not want to do, and is more likely to abandon a situation where people don't want to do anything rather than figure out how to mobilize or organize them properly.
Maybe this is expressed by the awareness he has of the problem and the theoretical understanding he has about the psychosocial dynamics that produce between people and the market, but his apparent inability to get it out of the world of ideas and start a call of action like someone like Greta Thunberg does, knowing that the problem is so above him that he would have to change the way the world works in order to solve it. I don’t think Ne-egos like simple solutions, but maybe that’s why they don’t often materialize.
He resents any attempts to "push" him to do things and rejects the idea of people pressuring each other to do things. He himself avoids the use of pressure, preferring instead to entice and inspire.
Look at what he says in the minute 4:01:
https://youtu.be/IgR6uaVqWsQ?t=241
It is basically the unconscious confession of his role function or at least a clear indication of his devaluation of
There has to be a reason why he has been called the modern Diogenes by some.
VULNERABLE:
Maybe I explained his creative function poorly or not as clearly as I would like to, but I’m sure that this explanation of his vulnerable function will clear doubts about his type, or at least will prove he is not a
Look at what he says in the minute 3:30 of this video:
https://youtu.be/8jVqHxMgWeE?t=210
He thinks that people are never spontaneous and that even in their private lives they always play at being themselves, which is a good thing for him because he doesn’t like other people expressing what he considers that people consider is their true self, so he rejects, as he says in the video, messages like “express yourself” or “show who you really are” because he considers it as distasteful, as he expresses in the minute 4:15: “I like people who know how to control themselves. I believe in proper manners”.
Look at this too, there’s a more clear proof of his PoLR in the minute 5:30:
https://youtu.be/Iljhym_uNPM?t=330
“I think that our inner truth, when you really open up yourself, you know, this pathetic moment: this is what I am, this is my dreams, my inner fears, desires; then, you live in a lie”.
The individual does not expect others to be actively aware or concerned with his own personal sentiments, and so sees little reason to be concerned with those of others, unless they have direct consequences for the individual. Statements by other persons reflecting their inner feelings are not fully registered by the individual if not accompanied by external emotional expression or actions.
Demonstrations of
https://youtu.be/Iljhym_uNPM?t=200
“I never believe in, you know, getting deep into a person, if I go deep into anyone I discover shit, we are all filthy egotists, whatever, it doesn’t interest me”.
The individual does not normally pay attention to the nuances of interpersonal relationships
The individual does not expect others to be actively aware or concerned with his own personal sentiments, and so sees little reason to be concerned with those of others, unless they have direct consequences for the individual.
Expressions of deep personal sentiments are awkward for the individual, whether coming from another or himself. He does not see it as his "right" to place the burden of his true emotions on another, both because he knows how uncomfortable those of others make him (even when they are positive and genuine), and because of his own awkwardness in expressing them.
Last edited by HeInin; 05-28-2023 at 04:10 PM.
SUGGESTIVE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvJocp4Ovzg
He doesn’t seem to care about any impression he may give to others, apart from the way he touches his nose or shirt, his way of talking is weird, his way of dressing contrasts with the one of the people he’s around, his accent is hard to understand (I don’t know if English speakers think the same), he can’t stay still in his chair, he can’t help but spit from time to time when speaking; it is safe to say that
Apart from that, he seems to have an unusual idea of how sex should be. Look at this (sorry if I made you seen this videos so many times, haha):
https://youtu.be/7xYO-VMZUGo?t=458
It kind of matches the descriptions of Wikisocion:
The individual tends to be chronically unaware of his own bodily processes, including physiological sensations and a sense of balance and alignment with one's true desires. He sometimes has peculiar preferences or tastes, which he himself is unable to understand or fulfill.
Though, it could also be weak unvalued
Well, but that could indicate only that his
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScZCL0KYj3M
What I understood from those videos is that Zizek thinks that our sexual identity is stable and seems to be critical about the idea that it should be conceived as something fluid, as it is seen (or he thinks it is seen) in the LGBT+ community today. In the minute 0:48 of the first video, explaining why Marx was more right than he would have known, he says that “For Marx, sexual gender coordinates were still stable” in contrast to the perception of today that sexual identities are fluid, to point that he should have considered that not only social forms-patriarchal relationships would start to be experienced as fluid in capitalism but also “what we perceive as natural, life on Earth, our sexual gender identities… and so on and so on”. Though, he seems surprised that nature was perceived as stable by Marx (a sense of continuity is perceived by
He also goes in defense of transexual people who have been through radical transformations of their bodies to say that they are closer to a radical level of freedom by choosing themselves, given that, they use an essentialist language (“I’m grateful that I born in the body in which I should have been born”), which, although contradictory with the historicist notion of gender that predominates in the LGBT+ community (“gender identities are not biologically determined; it’s socially, historically constructed, by performative discursive games and so on and so on”), implies that there are inherent parts that constitute their being and that there is a clearly genuine need to feel the decision as a necessity (required by the body) (which in Freudian psychoanalysis, would constitute them as “subjects”), which wouldn’t have any weight if you don’t take in account that doing a trans operation is a traumatic and a life-changing decision. But it could be that in his position of marxist he supports changes which are drastic or radical…
According to the video of Brain’s Journey about
But back to the main point: Considering that Zizek thinks that our “true self” is a lie and that conscious decisions are superficial, to have an unconscious disposition towards acting a certain way is being really free and, I suppose, honest, which is valuable for him (though he also says that we are never spontaneous, but this may have its complicated explanation); which makes me thing he values-valuing), that’s why he sees value in doing the trans operation, nobody choices to endure pain for the sake of it.
Though Zizek, not fully being able to get
So, maybe, his struggle with
sense of balance and alignment with one's true desires
Or simply Zizek doesn’t want to upset people, which would be a stronger argument for
Also, look at what Zizek lists as “wonderful small rituals”:
https://youtu.be/kzQexgB6O58?t=28
It makes
People with suggestive
MOBILIZING:
This is the easiest function to explain, along with the vulnerable
Look at what he says in the minute 5:02:
“Of course racist jokes and so on can be extremely oppressive, humiliating and so on. But the solution, I think, is to create an atmosphere or to practice such jokes in such a way that they really function a little bit of obscene contact which establishes true proximity between us”.
“These were obscene racist jokes but their effect was a wonderful sense of shared obscene solidarity”.
“Do you know that, when civil war exploded in Yugoslavia, early nineties and already before in the ethnic tensions. The first victims were these jokes, they immediately disappeared”.
The individual longs for situations where people are having fun, laughing and joking, and feel emotionally free and spontaneous.
He also says something similar in the minute 5:33 of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jVqHxMgWeE
Back to the first video. This is what Zizek comments in the minute 7:49:
“Another stupid problem I had. At some talk there was a mute and deaf guy and he asked if a translator can be there. And I couldn’t resist it: In the middle of the talk, in front of 200-300 people, I said, “What are you doing there, guys?”. My idea was that if you watch the gestures of the translator, it looked to me as if some obscene messages or what. ¡The guy laughed so much that we became friends! ¡And some old stupid lady reported me for making fun of crippled people! ¡It was so she didn’t see that’s how I became friends with the guy!”.
However, he is generally unable to produce this atmosphere himself andThough, I find this description strange. I don’t know how SLEs and ILEs aren’t able to produce funny atmospheres, being the funniest types of all… If you can explain this to me, I’d be thankful.uses other means to create situations where there is a good chance that others will take the emotional initiative and create a fun and emotionally stimulating atmosphere.
Failure at such attempts are met with dismay, which the individual either hides or reacts to with frustration and annoyance.
What happened with the lady who reported him. He looks a bit exalted when he talks about her.
IGNORING
Nothing much to add… There is a video on YouTube called “Slavoj Zizek: Why I Oppose Historicism and Remain a Philosopher”.
And historicism is related to
Also, a thing I’ve noticed about Zizek is that he often compares present trends or customs or with past situations he lived, but doesn’t explain how things led to shape the way things are now in a sequential way. I don’t know if he does this in his books, but in his speeches it’s almost nonexistent. This is a thing that is requested by Will Self (who I feel is a
Noam Chomsky says something similar, as it is referenced in the Wikipedia page of Zizek:
Noam Chomsky deems Žižek guilty of "using fancy terms like polysyllables and pretending you have a theory when you have no theory whatsoever", adding that his views are often too obscure to be communicated usefully to common people.
Also, look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKoGQpEkpO0
It is a good example of
But, to the main point: Zizek seems to dislike proverbs. He doesn’t seem to like this kind of phrases because they end up shortcutting critical thinking (
DEMONSTRATIVE
This is what is said in the Wikipedia page of Zizek:
According to John Gray and John Holbo, his theoretical argument often lacks grounding in historical fact, which makes him more provocative than insightful.
But there’s nothing more than that… I can’t find any text that says he uses false data or presents inaccurate historical events, the critics are that he just doesn’t focus on it.
Also, look at this video, it is the unconscious confession of his demonstrative function and his preference for Ti:
I don’t think there’s something more to explain. Though, this part seems a bit empty…
I’ll hope this will be enough to prove he is an ILE. I am not very confident in the
Last edited by HeInin; 05-28-2023 at 06:07 PM.
He would be easier to read because the combo of Tourette's, accent, and speech impediment make him hard to follow and my eyes soon glaze over. I should read what he says.
Extravert N type
Possible Fi PoLR ^When I really love someone, I can only show it by making aggressive and bad-taste remarks.
He VI's like a T type.
Black & white is a shallow divide, division is the color that multiplies
Taking things at face value is good only for a spell
To experience is simple, to explain is divine
Hearts of stone are a dead giveaway: no movement
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
